Removed at User Request
Overlooked mistypings
Removed at User Request
What, because he was told about what you said from other people you suppose this? Maybe everybody simply ignored what you said? How come these are the only conclusions you can draw on our behalf?Originally Posted by Pinocchio
You say that if the second conclusion is true, that this will mean that Banana Pancakes will have no right to speak for the Alpha Quadra...but what right do you yourself have to speak on behalf of the forum apart from the fact that you're a part of it?
If you want to discuss his type in greater depth, why not do it in a dedicated thread in the What's My Type? section?
Removed at User Request
I've read a (MBTI) study that self-typings may be more reliable than typings done by "experts" anyway - this was tested by checking the correlation between two tests taking six months or so apart by each individual and two appraisals by the "experts".
Of course that was MBTI and most of us are probably more informed than these "experts"...but if self-typings on the whole are more accurate than peer review, then how are we going to test the reliability of self-typings on teh internet? Maybe we should just leave things as they are?
That ambiguity has been a constant as long as I've been a member of the forum. For your own consideration, I would rhetorically ask what you're looking in the forum (and Socionics at large) given that no effective standard exists.
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
Removed at User Request
Pinocchio, I've made it clear that I'm open to a discussion of my type in a dedicated thread, which you have yet to start.
I have yet to see any of this "evidence" you keep referencing as to my type not being ILE. Not once have I seen a clear explanation of your reasons for my being ESI or not ILE.
Edit: I read your referenced comment, which I didn't see yesterday because as mentioned earlier, you were on ignore. I'm completely willing to put everything aside and be friends, provided you don't reference my type in anything other than a dedicated thread. That means no more snide remarks in unrelated threads about how I'm not ILE. That's really the only thing that bothers me about your behavior. I don't like when you do target anyone's type in an unrelated thread, but I'll settle for you not commenting about me.
@Mods Since we're on the subject, how about we discuss the behavior of targeting people's types in the more lounge-like forums. I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds it irritating.
Last edited by Banana Pancakes; 09-19-2009 at 02:17 AM.
ILE-Ti
6w7 sx/sp (low level of confidence)
Someone may bring up an "insight" which they believe is valid for the type or fucntion being discussed, and others may choose to take into account what they believe that person's type to be - I think just so long as they are musings up for discussion, then there is no problem. But a thread should not become an all-out war about someone's type if it is not relevant to the thread...although sometimes it is not so easy to ensure that things stay on track, particularly if many side-topics are discussed or if the threadstarter is the one who primarily responsible for the derail!
Removed at User Request
It would seem I've overlooked it then. Care to point me to the location of these comments? What I'm really looking for is a nice little summary (Ti) of your arguments...in a thread created for that purpose. The only arguments I ever seem to see from you are along the lines of:
"You deny the overwhelming evidence against you being ILE."
Again, I've yet to see said evidence.
Why isn't it possible? It makes the most sense to me. Cluttering other threads is NOT Ti. I begin to think more and more that Ti is not in your ego, but I'm not here to debate your type.
I'd like to address the fact that you bring up mn0good as my identical quite a bit. While I feel a good bit of identical-ness here, she's not the only ILE I feel that way about. Steve and I both find each other highly similar, we respond the same way to things, have had similar paths in life, etc. What's your typing of Steve? I don't know some of the other ILEs well enough, but from what I've seen we are similar.
I definitely don't feel the same vibe with LIIs, although I still like them.
I'm absolutely not rejecting the possibility that I could not be ILE (arguably this is because I have Ne as my main function, but I digress). For my first couple years of Socionics I was EXTREMELY cautious about setting my ILE typing in stone. I've made a few threads about the possibility of my being another type, and everything always came back to ILE. How did I decide on ILE? I simply read EVERYTHING I could get my hands on, about all the types. I even labored through jungs monotonous initial description. Have you done this?
Lately I've actually been going back to thinking I could be Se valuing and if you had said you thought I was ILI I'd have given much more weight to your arguments. To say that I myself am Se ego is simply ludicrous to me, and second only to saying I'm Fi lead, a function which I'm abysmal at.
I'd discuss my type with you and others could comment on it. I have yet to see ANYONE agree with you that I am mistyped, but I would be willing to entertain a conversation with just one person as long as I didn't feel I was wrecking another thread. I welcome debate, and not because I'm convinced I know everything (which I don't think I can say for you).
This is precisely the reason I don't appreciate your comments. I see no difference between your attitude and that of an immature 14 year old. My respect for you is very low when you jump in uninvited and start typing me, when you and I have rarely interacted. I've never even seen you on stickam and yet you think you understand me better than those I've from the forum who know me well, all because of things I put on a message board when I'm bored. The way I act on these forums is highly edited to start with, and it is precisely because of the attitudes of posters who arrogantly shit all over threads because they think they know everything about socionics.
Last edited by Banana Pancakes; 09-19-2009 at 03:16 AM.
ILE-Ti
6w7 sx/sp (low level of confidence)
You're cool BP. I vote ILE 6w7.
The saddest ESFj
...
Careful, pinocchio will retype you now. By the time this is over, half of Alpha will be retyped as Fi quadra.
ILE-Ti
6w7 sx/sp (low level of confidence)
Removed at User Request
Edit: Responses deleted as Pinocchio has confirmed that it is an utter waste of my time to interact with him in the quote below.
Last edited by Banana Pancakes; 09-19-2009 at 05:35 AM.
ILE-Ti
6w7 sx/sp (low level of confidence)
Removed at User Request
Why do you have to be so short-sighted? Surely you should consider each person's posts on its own merits, rather than dismiss it without reading simply because that person doesn't fit into your hierarchy?
I am genuinely sorry if I was too absurd for your liking in that thread, but I can't help the way I am.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tml#post562502
ILE-Ti
6w7 sx/sp (low level of confidence)
Removed at User Request
Could we rephrase that to "it feels futile"? I don't think that any of us could make a very coherent claim that we value our time enough to avoid anything that won't achieve much.
Just wanted to note that self-typings do carry quite a bit of weight - that is, they're considered true by default, unless someone presents an overwhelming case to the contrary. There have been a few people who got their self-typings vetoed by the community, but that's rather rare; normally each person has the final say in which type he or she will be treated as by the community at large.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
I myself will pay more attention to a post by someone who I've had good experience with in the past (i.e. you and Pinocchio), and be more comfortable ignoring a post by someone who seems to frequently says things that I've no use for (i.e. BnD).
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
You said that:Let's recall the memorable assertion that 1/14k = 14k to 1.
Maybe you can do something, after all, there is always hope.
A chance of "14k to 1" is expressed as 14,000/1, which equals 0.007% (or 0.1% rounded up). This is approximately equal to the chance "1 in 14,000".
The table here should explain this principle to you:
Fixed-odds betting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This doesn't make me have problems with you being typed as a LII. I have simply been emphasising to Ephemeros that it is wrong to take several little bits and pieces out of context when typing someone.
Backwards. 14,000/1=14,000, whereas 1/14,000≈0.00007 (or 0.007%).
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Not in gambling terms. "A hundred to one" = 100/1, which is thought of as 1 chance out of 101.
Removed at User Request
No I didn't. I still think I was right in that thread (in regards to the natural world). It's just that you presumed I was wrong with my intrepretation of what "14k to 1" meant - it does not mean 14k over 1.
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
I give it a 75% chance that you're both mistyped.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Ok, I think Pinocchio is some Ti type, though not necessarily ILE. But that's possible.
I think the other one is probably an Fe type? Or maybe an Fi type but not ESI - it would be creative Fi instead of leading Fi because the Fe is stronger than in someone with leading Fi. Those of us with creative Fi have pretty strong Fe. He doesn't seem ESI to me. SEE maybe. Men who are SEE often mistype themselves because they erroneously think SEEs are by definition slutty girls.
But I still think you could both very well be mistyped.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Removed at User Request
I agree that the best way to decide someones type (that we have available to us) is by logical discussion.
However, I don't know if one can force a person to say they are XXX, however, there has been times when group consensus has pointed away from someone whatever type they say they are.
I suppose the best way to go about it is to put the arguments on the table, then either agree or agree to disagree.
However, some types (and some people) are less likely to agree to disagree, or adopt a live and let live attitude, for various reasons.
Some types (and people) will continue it by making sly digs at the other, some types (and people) will bitch about someone to others.
Then it becomes a shit fest heh.
So I don't know what the solution is. I would prefer it if the first thing happened - arguments are reasons were put on the table and discussed with reasons and logic, without it becoming personal. Then either agree on that type or just say, "fair enough, i'll think about it".
But fuck, the freedom of expression on this forum is pretty good, but not OTT, so it's difficult to play with restricting peoples behaviours and forms of expression too much (for instance, on another forum I had several threads going which for me were all related to my type, but not everyone realised this and at a later date I connected them all together), just one of many examples.
But in that, maybe someone saying "can't discuss that particular thing here" as an overall rule is limiting to all types, perhaps especially those who value Ne - but not exclusively i'm sure!
Oh, what a load of shit i've probably just posted, lol
What are you so smug about?Let's recall the memorable assertion that 1/14k = 14k to 1.
Maybe you can do something, after all, there is always hope.
You tried to argue that 5 km into the Earth can describe the same region one finds at 6,000 km.
That's absurdity if I've ever seen it.
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
I dismiss people who don't seem to me to know what they're talking about, and Phaedrus dismisses people who don't seem to him to know what they're talking about. This doesn't make us the same type, or even mean we're using the same function.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Sometimes when I have difficulty answering a question, I ask myself.
What would ****** do?
The answer then normally becomes clear.
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
That was based on something Cyclops said, though it might not have been in this thread. I have a sick baby and I'm kind of back and forth reading stuff, and therefore having trouble keeping track of what is written in which thread.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Sure, you can rephrase it that way. I'm not interested in arguing directly with him anymore. Now that some others have gotten involved in the typing threads, it's a bit more interesting.Could we rephrase that to "it feels futile"? I don't think that any of us could make a very coherent claim that we value our time enough to avoid anything that won't achieve much.
ILE-Ti
6w7 sx/sp (low level of confidence)
I can understand the need for accuracy in something that is measurable and quantifiable... but socionics typing of people just isn't (not in that way), and people really aren't either. Beyond my disliking of restrictions and rules is just the matter of practicality... there cannot be 100% accuracy (there will be mistypings no matter what methods are applied). What there can be is some sort of forum regime where some sorting method is applied to everyone, simplifying them into 1 of 16 variables, and some group-dominated approach to people not being allowed to actually have their own idea about what type they are (as they do know themselves best) because that would mean stepping out of line or something, and then we could have our own little forum dictatorship, or consensus-ship or whatever. I mean you can't force people into boxes, and you can't achieve accuracy with something that isn't empiracle in nature. Some things are just chaotic and that's just the way they are... and the tighter one tries to compress the chaos into order the more it just explodes out the sides.
I guess I mainly see the forum as a resource... it's not a resource for accuracy in typing... it's too inconstant and moving for that... but it still is a resource.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
